Mark & Galusha, LLC: Employment Attorneys in Basking Ridge and Bound Brook, New Jersey.

In February 1998, Lisbi Abraham began employment with American International Group ("AIG") as a manager. Like many of his co-workers, Mr. Abraham was of Indian descent. During the next seven years, Mr. Abraham held different positions and at the end of his employment, he held the positions of the Chief Technology Officer for the Domestic Brokerage Group and Information Services Group. Mr. Abraham began working in this capacity in September 2005.

In October 2005, AIG decided to perform a restructuring of their CTO functions. After the review was complete, it was decided that several positions were duplicative and therefore, unnecessary. At this point, Mr. Abraham met with the corporate officers and was advised that his position had been terminated. Accordingly, Mr. Abraham was laid off.

As a result of his termination, Mr. Abraham filed a civil suit claiming that AIG had violated the terms of the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. As with the majority of civil suits, the initial burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff. As such, Mr. Abraham needed to prove that he (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) that his job performance was at a level that met his employer's legitimate expectations; (3) that he was terminated and (4) that the employer filled his responsibilities with a new individual after he left.

As Mr. Abraham was capable of providing the Court with the information above, the Court agreed that his prima facie case was made therefore, the burden of proof switched to AIG. AIG provided reasonable evidence to support their claims that AIG was in the process of reorganizing and restructuring, despite not having provided documentation in this regard to their HR Department. AIG provided testimony and certifications which outlined the justified reasons for letting Mr. Abraham go. Even though Mr. Abraham produced the statistical report of an expert which specifically said that "significant evidence [existed] that high-level Indian managers employed with the defendant AIG in the Plaintiff's group were treated less favorably than non-Indian peer-employees in terms of terminating decisions," the Court still entered summary judgment in favor of AIG.

The Appellate Division decided to remand this matter, however, as they felt that Mr. Abraham had produced "modest" evidence that discrimination could be the reason for the employer's action (Marzano v. Computer Sci. Corp., 91 F.3d 497). The Appellate Court felt that the expert report along with the proofs provided which indicated that high-level managers of Indian descent did not fare well during the restructuring was sufficient enough evidence to be considered by a jury.

With the recent financial downturn in the economy, many companies are undergoing reorganization and termination during this process is usually legitimate. Nevertheless, if you feel that you have been unlawfully discriminated based upon your national origin during your company's restructuring process, please contact Mark & Galusha, LLC. We are experienced employment lawyers who are familiar with all the standards required by the Court in order to make an appropriate claim. Discrimination may not be immediately visible on the surface however, if evidence can be provided, the Court is likely to consider your matter.

We can be reached at (908) 626-1001 or 973-440-2311, or simply tell us your story by clicking the contact us page. Mark & Galusha, LLC, are experienced attorneys serving Basking Ridge, Bound Brook and all of Somerset County, New Jersey.